politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today’s move against petrol and diesel vehicles will move the

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

That's what it will look like eventually, but it I was agreeing with @JosiasJessop that it will take longer than expected for the technology to mature.

Yes, an autonomous car is useless if it can't work like a taxi. In fact, an autonomous car than will hand control back to the human driver in an emergency is probably more dangerous - as the human may not be paying sufficient attention.

That's what Google think: Level 5 or nothing.

There are three broad approaches towards autonomous cars:
1) go for level 5 with no immediate steps. The Google approach, and fair enough.
2) go for high levels, publicise it as 'driverless' and make it the driver's duty to remain alert. Unworkable.
3) Bring in increasing numbers of drivers' aids, perfect them, and move on. What Merc, Volvo etc are doing.

1) and 3) are the honest options. Tesla goes for option 2 which is, IMO, a dangerous lie.

And that matters: it is as much an education of the public as it is technology, and Tesla's pushing the PR of their tech far further than the tech can currently stand.

Freggles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

That's just weird. Reminds me of Charlie Brooker live tweeting a car journey pretending he'd never been in one.
Do you walk to a shop round the corner when you need milk?

Freggles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

That's just weird. Reminds me of Charlie Brooker live tweeting a car journey pretending he'd never been in one.
Do you walk to a shop round the corner when you need milk?

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

That's what it will look like eventually, but it I was agreeing with @JosiasJessop that it will take longer than expected for the technology to mature.

Yes, an autonomous car is useless if it can't work like a taxi. In fact, an autonomous car than will hand control back to the human driver in an emergency is probably more dangerous - as the human may not be paying sufficient attention.

That's what Google think: Level 5 or nothing.

There are three broad approaches towards autonomous cars:
1) go for level 5 with no immediate steps. The Google approach, and fair enough.
2) go for high levels, publicise it as 'driverless' and make it the driver's duty to remain alert. Unworkable.
3) Bring in increasing numbers of drivers' aids, perfect them, and move on. What Merc, Volvo etc are doing.

1) and 3) are the honest options. Tesla goes for option 2 which is, IMO, a dangerous lie.

And that matters: it is as much an education of the public as it is technology, and Tesla's pushing the PR of their tech far further than the tech can currently stand.

Verulamius said:

Types of cabinet minister:

The activist - who makes changes and gets things done - e.g. Gove?

The manager - who keeps things moving without adverse headlines - e.g. Hunt?

The firefighter - who moves from post to post to resolve problems frequently caused by activists - e.g. Hammond?

The ineffectual - tends to be a political appointment and political themselves - e.g. Leadsom?

Any others?

Verulamius said:

Types of cabinet minister:


The manager - who keeps things moving without adverse headlines - e.g. Hunt?

rural_voter said:

david_herdson said:

jayfdee said:

I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

Indeed. You can be reasonably confident that if the move to electric becomes a flood rather than a trickle then the tax base will follow.

On the other hand, as the market expands, the efficiency of electric should improve markedly as more money goes into R&D in search of the returns on offer in such a bigger market.

The national grid in GB has a capacity of ~61 GW. Mass elec. cars will melt it. Badly thought out, driven by industrial lobbying. The nuclear industry is desperate for a level load; cars are used as much in summer to winter.

IMO if elec cars are the answer it's the end of private motoring and the car industry. One might as well summon a driverless electric taxi to get to the train station ... or supermarket. Electric taxis could be charged off the 11 kV system, avoiding the huge cost of replacing all the small 230 V cables to houses.

I'll be 87 in 2040. Although I think I'll still be around, I'll be past caring.

Most cars in 1900 were electric. If you think they'll improve, look at the past. The range is similar then and now.

jayfdee said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

Extremely difficult to manage without a car in rural parts.

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Off topic, this article by Stephen Bush is required reading:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/07/why-chris-grayling-jeremy-corbyns-secret-weapon

There's a bit of a contradiction in there. On the one hand he's arguing that the Tories are suffering because people can't get on the housing ladder. But presumably, the people moving to Swindon, Reading, Crawley, Bracknell and Brighton are getting on the housing ladder.

Personally I think the Tories do need to worry about home ownership. But there is a tendency to think that the latest result is all that matters and that because the Tories didn't do as well as expected, things will inevitably get worse for them. What we've just had is an election where the Tories ran a pretty dreadful campaign and the opposition got a free ride to promise the earth to voters. And the Tories still won more votes than Labour.

The problem is, tlg, that the people who have to move to Swindon, Reading etc. to get on the housing ladder will a) take their politics with them, b) resent their commute and blame the government, and c) push up the prices in said commuter towns thus pricing locals who can't/won't get a job in London further out of the market.

This is a major reason those towns and many others like them will fall to Labour next time.

I cannot see a solution for the Tories though. If they made planning controls significantly easier, they'll piss-off their core constituency. Any other steps they take to reduce house prices will similarly upset their core voters.

Massive council house building?... Doesn't really fit the Tories core values, nor meet the property ladder desire (though it does help people to have their own place to live). But where would it be funded from?

SouthamObserver said:

Ouch ...
https://twitter.com/mckinneytweets/status/890138741066670084

Alice_Aforethought said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Ouch ...
https://twitter.com/mckinneytweets/status/890138741066670084

I think the best course would be to allow the winner to recover costs from the loser in ET cases, which would be even-handed between employers and employees, and deter vexatious litigants.

That would mean no employee could ever risk it.

david_herdson said:

Verulamius said:

Types of cabinet minister:

The activist - who makes changes and gets things done - e.g. Gove?

The manager - who keeps things moving without adverse headlines - e.g. Hunt?

The firefighter - who moves from post to post to resolve problems frequently caused by activists - e.g. Hammond?

The ineffectual - tends to be a political appointment and political themselves - e.g. Leadsom?

Any others?

I'd split 'activist' into two sub-categories:

The ideologue: determined to implement their own agenda - e.g. Gove

The reformer: appointed to implement the government's / PM's agenda - not particularly visible under Cameron or May (as neither were radically reforming PMs) but plenty under Thatcher and Blair.

I wouldn't have 'ineffectual' as a category: that's a measure of how well they did what they did rather than why they did it and why they were there. 'Political appointee' deserves a category in its own right though.

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

That'll explain your continued shrewd and insightful posts

Bad news for those drivers who are at the wheel for more than two hours each day.

“We know that regularly driving for more than two to three hours a day is bad for your heart. The research suggests it is bad for your brain, too, perhaps because your mind is less active in these hours. Driving causes stress and fatigue, with studies showing the links between them and cognitive decline.”

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

Sean_F said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Off topic, this article by Stephen Bush is required reading:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/07/why-chris-grayling-jeremy-corbyns-secret-weapon

There's a bit of a contradiction in there. On the one hand he's arguing that the Tories are suffering because people can't get on the housing ladder. But presumably, the people moving to Swindon, Reading, Crawley, Bracknell and Brighton are getting on the housing ladder.

Personally I think the Tories do need to worry about home ownership. But there is a tendency to think that the latest result is all that matters and that because the Tories didn't do as well as expected, things will inevitably get worse for them. What we've just had is an election where the Tories ran a pretty dreadful campaign and the opposition got a free ride to promise the earth to voters. And the Tories still won more votes than Labour.

The problem is, tlg, that the people who have to move to Swindon, Reading etc. to get on the housing ladder will a) take their politics with them, b) resent their commute and blame the government, and c) push up the prices in said commuter towns thus pricing locals who can't/won't get a job in London further out of the market.

This is a major reason those towns and many others like them will fall to Labour next time.

I cannot see a solution for the Tories though. If they made planning controls significantly easier, they'll piss-off their core constituency. Any other steps they take to reduce house prices will similarly upset their core voters.

Massive council house building?... Doesn't really fit the Tories core values, nor meet the property ladder desire (though it does help people to have their own place to live). But where would it be funded from?

Over time, people tend to take on the politics of the areas they move to. That's why most New Towns have switched from Labour to Conservative over the years.

I would expect housing to become a good deal more affordable in coming years, due to a number of trends.

1. Construction output has risen very strongly over the past four years.
2. Immigration from the EU will fall considerably due to Brexit.
3. The number of divorces has fallen quite sharply in recent years, and
4. The number of deaths is due to increase markedly, releasing new properties on to the market.

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

That's what it will look like eventually, but it I was agreeing with @JosiasJessop that it will take longer than expected for the technology to mature.

Yes, an autonomous car is useless if it can't work like a taxi. In fact, an autonomous car than will hand control back to the human driver in an emergency is probably more dangerous - as the human may not be paying sufficient attention.

That's what Google think: Level 5 or nothing.

There are three broad approaches towards autonomous cars:
1) go for level 5 with no immediate steps. The Google approach, and fair enough.
2) go for high levels, publicise it as 'driverless' and make it the driver's duty to remain alert. Unworkable.
3) Bring in increasing numbers of drivers' aids, perfect them, and move on. What Merc, Volvo etc are doing.

1) and 3) are the honest options. Tesla goes for option 2 which is, IMO, a dangerous lie.

And that matters: it is as much an education of the public as it is technology, and Tesla's pushing the PR of their tech far further than the tech can currently stand.

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.

Richard_Nabavi said:

surbiton said:

We banned unleaded petrol. Did all EU countries do so exactly at the same time ? They are not bringing new vehicle standards. All they are saying is that certain vehicles are not permitted.

I'm struggling to see why you think that's not a new vehicle standard. It seems to be 100% the definition of a vehicle standard.

More generally, the implication of the French policy would be that a car can be legally sold in Germany but not just across the border in France. That would explode the entire rationale and legal basis of the Single Market.

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

That's what it will look like eventually, but it I was agreeing with @JosiasJessop that it will take longer than expected for the technology to mature.

Yes, an autonomous car is useless if it can't work like a taxi. In fact, an autonomous car than will hand control back to the human driver in an emergency is probably more dangerous - as the human may not be paying sufficient attention.

That's what Google think: Level 5 or nothing.

There are three broad approaches towards autonomous cars:
1) go for level 5 with no immediate steps. The Google approach, and fair enough.
2) go for high levels, publicise it as 'driverless' and make it the driver's duty to remain alert. Unworkable.
3) Bring in increasing numbers of drivers' aids, perfect them, and move on. What Merc, Volvo etc are doing.

1) and 3) are the honest options. Tesla goes for option 2 which is, IMO, a dangerous lie.

And that matters: it is as much an education of the public as it is technology, and Tesla's pushing the PR of their tech far further than the tech can currently stand.

Having spoken to some of the leading people in the field, who are heading up the various well known company teams, there is a divergence of how to proceed.

One group see self-driving cars as a service. They want to get to level 5 at least in one environment and roll it out, then grow the service city by city, country by country.

The other want to slowly progress through the levels, but at each level the car should work in all possible environments.

Should add that those saying Uber are going under, they have recently invested a huge amount to hire a team of some of the best people at this and their research team at University of Toronto is growing extremely rapidly.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Do we know how many more power stations we will need to sustain the current amount of car travel? The maths must be doable and done.

It's not just power stations, it's also the entire distribution network.

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

That's what it will look like eventually, but it I was agreeing with @JosiasJessop that it will take longer than expected for the technology to mature.

Yes, an autonomous car is useless if it can't work like a taxi. In fact, an autonomous car than will hand control back to the human driver in an emergency is probably more dangerous - as the human may not be paying sufficient attention.

That's what Google think: Level 5 or nothing.

There are three broad approaches towards autonomous cars:
1) go for level 5 with no immediate steps. The Google approach, and fair enough.
2) go for high levels, publicise it as 'driverless' and make it the driver's duty to remain alert. Unworkable.
3) Bring in increasing numbers of drivers' aids, perfect them, and move on. What Merc, Volvo etc are doing.

1) and 3) are the honest options. Tesla goes for option 2 which is, IMO, a dangerous lie.

And that matters: it is as much an education of the public as it is technology, and Tesla's pushing the PR of their tech far further than the tech can currently stand.

Having spoken to some of the leading people in the field, who are heading up the various well known company teams, there is a divergence of how to proceed.

One group see self-driving cars as a service. They want to get to level 5 at least in one environment and roll it out, then grow the service city by city, country by country.

The other want to slowly progress through the levels, but at each level the car should work in all possible environments.

Should add that those saying Uber are going under, they have recently invested a huge amount to hire a team of some of the best people at this and their research team at University of Toronto is growing extremely rapidly.

Thanks. As a matter of interest, what do you mean by 'environment' in this context?

surbiton said:

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.

Being without a car is only really possible in a big city where the government spends billions on public transport infrastructure. The rest of the country can sod off.

This thread reminded me - yet again - to apply for my 60+ Oyster card.

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.

I expect the Left to come down on motorists like a ton of bricks as soon as they regain power.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Well the likes of Uber are talking a complete city, such having mapped the whole of Toronto metro area.

This is again another area of divergence, do you create HD maps of a consistent area or do you have low res maps and the car still be able to navigate / send the data back and the whole fleet able to learn from that. You can do the later if you are selling this as a service.

There is also a lot of work on cars learning in one "environment" and then being able to transfer that learning to another e.g. say a city in Germany, then be able to transfer that learning to a city in US.

One other thing I should add, some cities are actually investing in changing their roads / signs / signals to be aid self driving cars. nuTonomy tested in Singapore by doing this.

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Well the likes of Uber are talking a complete city, such having mapped the whole of Toronto metro area.

This is again another area of divergence, do you create HD maps of a consistent area or do you have low res maps and the car still be able to navigate / send the data back and the whole fleet able to learn from that. You can do the later if you are selling this as a service.

There is also a lot of work on cars learning in one "environment" and then being able to transfer that learning to another e.g. say a city in Germany, then be able to transfer that learning to a city in US.

One other thing I should add, some cities are actually investing in changing their roads / signs / signals to be aid self driving cars. nuTonomy tested in Singapore by doing this.

Again, thanks.

I don't see mapping as the way forward for autonomy, especially in built-up areas. It can help, but anything that relies on it is nowhere near 'true' AI. After all, I can drive around a strange city safely without having to know where every traffic light is.

I believe some companies believe the market for data in autonomous cars (both used by, and generated by) will be bigger than the market for the cars themselves. No wonder Google are so interested.

As for cyclists, the state-of-the-art is really poor:

"However, when it comes to spotting and orienting bikes and bicyclists, performance drops significantly. Deep3DBox is among the best, yet it spots only 74 percent of bikes in the benchmarking test. And though it can orient over 88 percent of the cars in the test images, it scores just 59 percent for the bikes."

http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/the-selfdriving-cars-bicycle-problem

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.

I expect the Left to come down on motorists like a ton of bricks as soon as they regain power.

Which of course Labour could, politically. So it pisses off rural and older voters - no problem. One of the dangers in such a divided country is that it not only makes it easier (for either party) to hit the other's support but it incentivises such behaviour.

To an extent, but that could quickly cost them Lincoln, Bedford, Canterbury and Stroud and put Milton Keynes and Swindon way off the map.

GeoffM said:

On topic ref tech advances ... and apologies if it's already been posted below:

Toyota is in production engineering for a solid state battery, which uses a solid electrolyte instead of the conventional semi-liquid version used in today's lithium-ion batteries. The company said it aims to put the new tech in production electric vehicles as early as 2020

https://www.wsj.com/articles/toyota-nears-major-technological-breakthrough-in-electric-car-batteries-1500985883

The improved battery technology would make it possible to create smaller, more lightweight lithium-ion batteries for use in EVs, that could also potentially boost the total charge capacity and result in longer-range vehicles. Another improvement for this type of battery would be longer overall usable life, which would make it possible to both use the vehicles they're installed in for longer, and add potential for product recycling and alternative post-vehicle life (some companies are already looking into putting EV batteries into use in home and commercial energy storage, for example).

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/25/toyotas-new-solid-state-battery-could-make-its-way-to-cars-by-2020/

JosiasJessop said:

GeoffM said:

On topic ref tech advances ... and apologies if it's already been posted below:

Toyota is in production engineering for a solid state battery, which uses a solid electrolyte instead of the conventional semi-liquid version used in today's lithium-ion batteries. The company said it aims to put the new tech in production electric vehicles as early as 2020

https://www.wsj.com/articles/toyota-nears-major-technological-breakthrough-in-electric-car-batteries-1500985883

The improved battery technology would make it possible to create smaller, more lightweight lithium-ion batteries for use in EVs, that could also potentially boost the total charge capacity and result in longer-range vehicles. Another improvement for this type of battery would be longer overall usable life, which would make it possible to both use the vehicles they're installed in for longer, and add potential for product recycling and alternative post-vehicle life (some companies are already looking into putting EV batteries into use in home and commercial energy storage, for example).

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/25/toyotas-new-solid-state-battery-could-make-its-way-to-cars-by-2020/

New battery advances are reported on all the time, yet battery development is still glacially slow. It's almost as if the reports invariably overstate the tech.

Hopefully one of the advances will pan out and make the developers a fortune. But I wouldn't gamble on any one system without expecting to lose my money.

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.

We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.

I expect the Left to come down on motorists like a ton of bricks as soon as they regain power.

Which of course Labour could, politically. So it pisses off rural and older voters - no problem. One of the dangers in such a divided country is that it not only makes it easier (for either party) to hit the other's support but it incentivises such behaviour.

To an extent, but that could quickly cost them Lincoln, Bedford, Canterbury and Stroud and put Milton Keynes and Swindon way off the map.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Urquhart, we have a judge being attacked as unacceptable because he's white, and this:
twitter.com/BBCRadioStoke/status/890098926409404416

ThreeQuidder said:

Anorak said:

Alice_Aforethought said:

david_herdson said:

As for cycling, yes, there may be an uptick in usage if air pollution is reduced but the facts remain that you still turn up sweaty wherever you're going, you're still vulnerable to other road-users wielding heavy, fast metal boxes, and you're still at the mercy of the weather.

I looked into a pushbike or a moped a few years ago as an alternative to the Tube, and concluded I'd end up paying for both.

If I have to go to a 9am meeting at someone else's office I am not going to cycle in to arrive at mine at 7.30, change, and commute over to their office. I'm going to Tube it straight there, which means I'll Tube it home again. So either I pay the maximum daily whack for a Tube ticket or I buy a season ticket and under-use it while also paying for the two wheels.

I think it only really works for people who work flexi hours in one place all the time.

I looked at this. For me, an travelling to work 4 days a week and the occasional bus ride is cheaper as pay-as-you-go than a rolling monthly travel card, especially when vacation time is taken into consideration.

Season tickets for the tube are for mugs or a few edge cases.

Not if you work five days a week (as most people do) and/or can get an annual travelcard either interest free from work or from CommuterClub.